2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[IKnowNothing]

FTFY

On this board those are pretty synonymous.

 

[Halifax Tar]

On this board those are pretty synonymous.

Fixed that for you

 

[Brad Sallows]

I will sit the OAS argument out for now. I simply do not have enough information to agree or disagree with the policy.

OAS/GIS are meant to alleviate poverty among the elderly. (Old Age Supplement, Guaranteed Income Supplement). Maximum OAS right now is $784.67 monthly. Maximum GIS is $1065.47 monthly. Thus, $22201.68 annually. Median income in 2021 was $68,400 (half of people above, and half below).

Both programs are ordinary welfare payments: transfers to individuals from general revenues. Obviously OAS/GIS only supports a very frugal existence, and then only provided one owns one's home.

The MBM (Market Basket Measure) - one of the measures used to gauge poverty - amount was $48,583 in 2022.

It is, frankly, f*cked up that any kind of welfare goes to anyone whose annual income is above the median, when the OAS/GIS is less than half of what's needed to bring people up to the MBM. People in government concerned with these programs know full well everything I just described. I consider them worse than derelict in their duties for not sorting this out.

 

[Halifax Tar]

On this board those are pretty synonymous.

FYI I just realized this went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over my head lol

 

[IKnowNothing]

OAS/GIS are meant to alleviate poverty among the elderly. (Old Age Supplement, Guaranteed Income Supplement). Maximum OAS right now is $784.67 monthly. Maximum GIS is $1065.47 monthly. Thus, $22201.68 annually. Median income in 2021 was $68,400 (half of people above, and half below).

Both programs are ordinary welfare payments: transfers to individuals from general revenues. Obviously OAS/GIS only supports a very frugal existence, and then only provided one owns one's home.

The MBM (Market Basket Measure) - one of the measures used to gauge poverty - amount was $48,583 in 2022.

It is, frankly, f*cked up that any kind of welfare goes to anyone whose annual income is above the median, when the OAS/GIS is less than half of what's needed to bring people up to the MBM. People in government concerned with these programs know full well everything I just described. I consider them worse than derelict in their duties for not sorting this out.

The bolded figures (indexed to current) seem like a pretty sensible place to set initial and final clawback thresholds.

Would you be in favour of immediately raising the the OAS/GIS/both for those below with some/all of the savings- or do you think we should be more focused on balancing the budget?

 

[Brad Sallows]

The bolded figures (indexed to current) seem like a pretty sensible place to set initial and final clawback thresholds.

Would you be in favour of immediately raising the the OAS/GIS/both for those below with some/all of the savings- or do you think we should be more focused on balancing the budget?

I know and have known people living on OAS/GIS, some with a little bit of CPP. I'd much rather rebalance by shifting the savings to them - they have genuine need - and gut recent new spending programs, which self-evidently are also transferring or about to transfer money to relatively well-off people.

[Add: it'll be a long climb. From the 2023/24 Main Estimates: "Money for elderly benefits is the single largest area of federal spending. They are comprised of three complementary programs - Old Age Security (OAS), the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and Allowance Payments. OAS is the largest federal program – responsible for about one in every six dollars of federal spending. OAS provides a monthly pension payment to most seniors who are over 65 and meet the eligibility requirements. Federal spending on Elderly Benefits is set to increase by $7.5 billion (11 per cent) to a total of $76.6 billion in 2023-24 (Figure 2-1). PBO projects that by 2027-28, federal spending on Elderly Benefits will reach $93.8 billion."

 

[ArmyRick]

On this part of the discussion, I am thankful for the information being presented. I am still very in the dark about it.

I know my father (dying slowly from cancer) didn't qualify for OAS until about 2-3 years ago (He made too much money), I am all for more intelligent approach to it. I have a very strong "no one left in the streets" social mindset. Especially elderly who can't simply work.

I have NO problem spending money on taxes if the services and end products are there. If the government wants to tax the shit out of me, I had better see a first rate health care, top of the line military service, full accountability of officials, social safety net that actually works, etc.

However we are paying huge taxes on the whole, get piss poor services and zero accountability from our government all while some are getting filthy rich and those in government or working for government have not had to worry about their generous income.

My spidey senses tell me OAS is not on the front burner issue for most Canadians.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I know and have known people living on OAS/GIS, some with a little bit of CPP. I'd much rather rebalance by shifting the savings to them - they have genuine need - and gut recent new spending programs, which self-evidently are also transferring or about to transfer money to relatively well-off people.

[Add: it'll be a long climb. From the 2023/24 Main Estimates: "Money for elderly benefits is the single largest area of federal spending. They are comprised of three complementary programs - Old Age Security (OAS), the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and Allowance Payments. OAS is the largest federal program – responsible for about one in every six dollars of federal spending. OAS provides a monthly pension payment to most seniors who are over 65 and meet the eligibility requirements. Federal spending on Elderly Benefits is set to increase by $7.5 billion (11 per cent) to a total of $76.6 billion in 2023-24 (Figure 2-1). PBO projects that by 2027-28, federal spending on Elderly Benefits will reach $93.8 billion."

I wish they made information on gross disbursements by income strata more readily available. I'd love to know how far down we'd have to push the two ceiling thresholds to carve out 30 of that 80 billion- split that equally between balancing the budget and upping the payments at the lower income end. I think we have to balance getting more to those with genuine need with the overall needs of the nation. No easy choices.

My spidey senses tell me OAS is not on the front burner issue for most Canadians.

You're absolutely right. But inflation and affordability are for most. Government spending and debt levels for slightly fewer but still a lot.

And I would suggest that the fact that those are front burner issues and an $80B dollar a year (and growing) social transfer program is escaping public scrutiny is due more to a combination of slightly shamefaced (or unrepentant) self interest from one voting bloc and lack of awareness from the rest than it is to reason.

Said more succinctly- no it's not, but it should be.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Are you ok with $8500 of your annual tax dollars going to someone with 89k of income in retirement?

I started paying into government coffers in the form of taxes at 15 years old. When I started to do that, it was with the expectation that as long as I took care of my end they would take care of me in old age.

I held up my end of the bargain. I don't expect the government to renege on their end. I'm entitled to what I was promised and contributed to.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I started paying into government coffers in the form of taxes at 15 years old. When I started to do that, it was with the expectation that as long as I took care of my end they would take care of me in old age.

I held up my end of the bargain. I don't expect the government to renege on their end. I'm entitled to what I was promised and contributed to.

OAS for those that need it is a pillar of our social safety net and I absolutely support it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

OAS for those that need it is a pillar of our social safety net and I absolutely support it.

As do I.

 

[IKnowNothing]

As do I.

Would you also agree that as with all welfare programs it should be properly targeted to only those that need it, to accomplish its goal with a minimum of waste and keep government spending (and by extension- taxation) in check?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Would you also agree that as with all welfare programs it should be properly targeted to only those that need it, to accomplish its goal with a minimum of waste and keep government spending (and by extension- taxation) in check?

You mean redistribute my wealth. If you can ensure and prove that a Canadian citizen and only a Canadian citizen, is truly in need, no problem. Unfortunately, we know that is not the case. And if we do, it should be through workfare, not welfare, where possible.

 

[Halifax Tar]

You mean redistribute my wealth. If you can ensure and prove that a Canadian citizen and only a Canadian citizen, is truly in need, no problem. Unfortunately, we know that is not the case. And if we do, it should be through workfare, not welfare, where possible.

I also want to see that the recipient of my wealth redistribution has also contributed to the system and put forth a life of effort. No effort, no money.

My only exception would be for those who are incapacitated in such a way that they were never able to work.

 

[Lumber]

I also want to see that the recipient of my wealth redistribution has also contributed to the system and put forth a life of effort. No effort, no money.

My only exception would be for those who are incapacitated in such a way that they were never able to work.

Lt Razak approved of this message!

 

[Halifax Tar]

Lt Razak approved of this message!

View attachment 84245

Our country, perhaps society, could do with some of the values/ideas from that book. Remember I said book, not movie.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Our country, perhaps society, could do with some of the values/ideas from that book. Remember I said book, not movie.

Both the book and movie glorified fascist and jingoistic ideals. I'll take a hard effing pass on that one.

We as a species have only advanced and existed this long because we are capable of caring for those incapable of caring for themselves. In fact, anthropologist have pin pointed the healing of a fractured bone as the the start of civilization as we know it. Someone was able to hunt, protect, and mend the person who was hurt, so they could recover and get back to it.

In 2024, we still will have people of all walks of life that need a hand. That hand should not be tied to their productivity or ability to contribute to the "wealth redistribution."

There will always be greed in humanity, and I agree that those who abuse the system need to be taken to task accordingly. That said, I was raised to only look in someone else's bowl if you're making sure they have something to eat, not to bitch about who has more.

With that in mind, we often complain about how much we have to support without looking at the conditions that lead to people needing that support:

-Corporatism has commodified basic human necessities like food and shelter to the point where even working and contributing to society is not enough to make ends meet.

-Reganism, Thatcherism, et al in the 1980s deliberately weakened social welfare programs and organized labour to make profits higher and generate "economic growth." That trickle down never happened.

-the Post War boom in the 1950s was largely due to intense government regulation of housing, markets, and hand outs. Those actions would be seen as neo-Communism today, yet in the "glory days" we aspire to return to; it was Capitalism with restraint.

Do I think there are folks that take more than they give? Definitely. The question should always be "what led them to take more than they give?" and fixing the societal problems surrounding it. If its merely that Jackass McFuckface wants a free ride when they are more than capable, well then I can see the desire to turn off the taps for him.

We in the CAF need to be very careful to not drink our own bathwater in the belief that our service elevates our role in society. We all eventually go back to being Mr./Mrs./Ms./Xr. Bloggins at the end of this. We have veterans who DID serve, who are now in the line for handouts, possibly because of their service and not having the means to keep their head above water.

 

[Remius]

Both the book and movie glorified fascist and jingoistic ideals. I'll take a hard effing pass on that one.

We as a species have only advanced and existed this long because we are capable of caring for those incapable of caring for themselves. In fact, anthropologist have pin pointed the healing of a fractured bone as the the start of civilization as we know it. Someone was able to hunt, protect, and mend the person who was hurt, so they could recover and get back to it.

In 2024, we still will have people of all walks of life that need a hand. That hand should not be tied to their productivity or ability to contribute to the "wealth redistribution."

There will always be greed in humanity, and I agree that those who abuse the system need to be taken to task accordingly. That said, I was raised to only look in someone else's bowl if you're making sure they have something to eat, not to bitch about who has more.

With that in mind, we often complain about how much we have to support without looking at the conditions that lead to people needing that support:

-Corporatism has commodified basic human necessities like food and shelter to the point where even working and contributing to society is not enough to make ends meet.

-Reganism, Thatcherism, et al in the 1980s deliberately weakened social welfare programs and organized labour to make profits higher and generate "economic growth." That trickle down never happened.

-the Post War boom in the 1950s was largely due to intense government regulation of housing, markets, and hand outs. Those actions would be seen as neo-Communism today, yet in the "glory days" we aspire to return to; it was Capitalism with restraint.

Do I think there are folks that take more than they give? Definitely. The question should always be "what led them to take more than they give?" and fixing the societal problems surrounding it. If its merely that Jackass McFuckface wants a free ride when they are more than capable, well then I can see the desire to turn off the taps for him.

We in the CAF need to be very careful to not drink our own bathwater in the belief that our service elevates our role in society. We all eventually go back to being Mr./Mrs./Ms./Xr. Bloggins at the end of this. We have veterans who DID serve, who are now in the line for handouts, possibly because of their service and not having the means to keep their head above water.

Well, he did say “some” of the values. Not all.

I always found the movie was really a sort of parody of the book.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Well, he did say “some” of the values. Not all.

I always found the movie was really a sort of parody of the book.

If you listen to the director's commentary, he said he did it on purpose to satire the political opinions expressed in the book. Its why there are some familiar looking uniforms, white folks from Buenos Aires, and a large amount of propaganda vignettes

 

[Rudburg]

It's doubtful Verhoeven even understood the book. He admits to having only read the first two chapters.

I have read somewhere that the original script was very similar to the book, but Verhoeven imposed a number of significant changes during development. I think it's fair to say that he failed in his objective for the movie: "All the way through I wanted the audience to be asking, 'Are these people crazy?'"